Peter-Assment and Gender Issues
So, an upcoming review – Peter-Assment – is going to involve a lot of topics based on gender-related issues, so I thought that now would be the best time to maybe write an article on it. The episode in specific talks about female-on-male sexual harassment, and it gets up to the point of female-on-male rape. It does it in a pretty disgusting manner too. The episode basically justifies Angela trying to rape Peter because she hasn't had sex in awhile. I'll try to be calm throughout the review, but the sheer repulsion I get at the end of it may take its hold. It is one of the things that really does deserve my anger, but I need to describe it as rationally as possible because there are some messages that society doesn't get quite yet. Our society is sexist to both genders in systemic ways. I don't think that it's controversial to say that, at least it shouldn't be. If you really looked at it, you could probably tell me if society was more sexist to men or women, but trying to figure that out is largely a red herring. I try to fight and point out the injustices that I see, and both sides are hit with standards that are absolutely impossible to keep. With women, these standards are based on their appearance with exceptions of things like child-rearing. With men, these standards are based on their actions. I mean we all know the stupid double standard of "women should never ever sex, and men should have sex as much as possible." Men are stereotyped as being strong, and women are stereotyped as being weak. And before I continue, no it's not a good thing to be stereotyped as strong. There's a reason most suicides, workplace deaths, and combat deaths belong to men. Every human being on Earth has both times of strength and times of weakness. I said that pointing out who has it worse is a red herring. This is because when people say "men have it easier" or "women have it easier" they tend to two things that don't help matters. Either they try to make it worse for the "easier" side instead of making it better for the "worse" side. Or, they use their side being "harder" as justification for any hardship the "easier" side has. And this is a problem, because as I keep saying, you can't be sexist to one side without it eventually boomeranging back to you. When we create or justify a gender role, we tend to create and justify aspects of the other one. Let's talk conscription. In the United States, it is very unlikely that we will ever be drafted (then again, the 2016 election coming up...). It's argued that the United States prides itself on an all-volunteer military. As it stands, only men are drafted. In 1981, a case went to the Supreme Court called Rostker vs. Goldberg declaring the draft to be male only constitutional, as it did not violate the 14th amendment. This is because women were not allowed on the front lines at that time, and they didn't gain that ability until 2013. I wonder if the 1981 ruling delayed women from getting that later ability at all. But thinking about only your own backyard when it comes to gender is another fallacy that a lot of people seem to fall into. A lot of countries have it worse. In Finland, all men and only men are forced into six months of military training (unless they're Jehova's Witnesses). Finland has one of the highest rates of conscription in the world. Does it sound unjust that only one half of the population is forced to do this? As you'd imagine, the people in that country don't think so. They say it's fair because in that country, women only make 81 cents to every dollar that a man earns and the six months can help them catch up and end on a fair playing field. Regardless of what you think about the wage gap (you've got your opinion on it and I can't change it), making men do something extra doesn't help women get paid more. "It's bad for us too" is a regressive, childish defense because in all honesty it doesn't have to be bad for anyone if we could get this thing right. The male gender role, almost everywhere in the world is protector and provider. The more it gets cemented this way, the more the female gender role gets cemented as caregiver and it's been about 50 years since we as a society have decided how limiting that role is. Some people say we shouldn't care, because men are the stronger ones. They need to do all of the heavy lifting and stuff. They're better build for getting hurt. Hey... did you guys know that cheerleading is the most dangerous sport in America? Assuming that what men do is just... determined to be dangerous, has the side effect of determining what women do just isn't dangerous at all. Cheerleading is more dangerous than football (either kind), or even ice hockey. Why? Stereotypically what they do is look pretty and act vapid. In reality, they're tossing themselves two stories in the air, doing very difficult stunts, and they're doing it without protection. On top of that, they have to deal with people trying to avoid calling it a sport. First of all, it is a sport. It involves a lot of physical exercise, and I've even been to my sister's competitions. While there is a vested business interest involved, a lot of the problem is the stereotypes surrounding cheerleading. Like I said, women are stereotyped based on their appearance, not their abilities. Which is very unfortunate, especially when it comes to activities in which people are actually getting seriously hurt due to preconceived notions. Cheerleading is stereotyped as the girliest thing ever, and the stereotype is that you don't really get hurt doing something girly. So, let's talk about media. If there's anything you've heard about media affection people's perception of gender, it's that little girls are seeing rail-thin celebrities and they're starving themselves in response. That's very real, although like domestic abuse, our perceptions about ourselves and our gender channeled in through the media is not a one-sex thing. Let's go through your common sitcom family. We have a nagging wife who may or may not work, but controls all of the money in the house, and she's probably asexual. We have a husband who is a dumbass idiot, so bad at taking care of children that he'd change a diaper by putting it on his head. He's also aromantic, but hypersexual. He probably has a daughter that he's over-protective of. That daughter is probably a straight A perfect student. And she has a brother who is borderline falling and causing all kinds of mischief. This is okay though because "boys will be boys." Hey... did you know that that saying in its actual language translates to "children will be children?" Media does not accurately reflect reality. Commercials are manipulative pieces of shit. The news is biased towards giving us negative messages. The news is more likely to tell you that 5 people died half a country away than to tell you the biggest scientific and medical achievements this year. Crime shows like CSI constantly tell you lies and dramatize the world to a fault. And sitcoms kind of do all of that at once for your domestic life. The most forward stereotype portrayed by media is that all men want sex all the time. Honestly, this is the most dangerous stereotype towards men. That might be surprising, since the worst thing that a man suffers for in a sitcom or commercial is that he's told to sleep on the couch for pissing off his wife. And it goes beyond the fear that any man will do something sexual to you or your children at any given point to. The worst aspects of this have to do sexual harassment and rape, and I'll be getting into that in the actual review. But, to make this simple "he's a man, he must have wanted it" is like saying "she wore a short skirt, she must have wanted it." No, not all men want sex all the time. Do men as a whole want it more than women as a whole. I have no fucking idea. Research keeps bouncing all around and at points in history this stereotype was entirely reversed. Maybe... people's desire to have sex or not to have it is independent of their gender. As is their desire to have kids. You know what my absolute favorite confusing double standard is in our society. It says that men would do anything to avoid doing anything with their kids. At the same time, it thinks that if they had the option to use their own birth control pill, they wouldn't be responsible enough to do it. "All men are liars. They'll do anything to get you in bed. They can't even remember to take out the trash." I've actually seen those quotes on actual articles discussing the possibility of a male birth control pill. So, let's talk about this. Men have three types of birth control available to them. The first is the condom, which is a 4000 year old piece of technology. The first stated use of the vasectomy (if we disclude things like castration) was done in 1899. And then there's abstinence, but it's currently in its hypothetical state. The condom reduces pleasure, vasectomies are not 100% effective and they are a permanent thing. But the are safer than the female equivalent. And there's abstinence. Women have so many options to birth control that I couldn't list them all. Pay attention in health class. There's most notably though, the birth control pill. This was more effective, even moreso than abortions, for allowing a woman to become a mother if and when she so chose. And it was one of the biggest sparks for the women's liberation movement. I'll explain why becoming a parent when one so chooses is important for both sexes, I'll talk about some of the stereotypes and concerns that male birth control pills have. First of all, it's more difficult. Men continually produce sperm their entire lives. That explains most of the reason why we don't have it now. The other reason is sexism. Surveys indicate that most women believe men will say that they're on "the pill" to get them into bed. Can we analyze this please? First of all, just because a man is on birth control doesn't mean that a woman can't also be on it. Second of all, if the stereotype was true that all men want sex all the time with no strings attached, then the you'd think the articles would say "we'd be suffering from massive underpopulation for years to come!" As far as I can see though, more birth control options leads to a better society. You're able to be a better parent if you have a kid when you're ready to have a kid. Then there's that other reason that I didn't mention. A man already has to deal with that uncertainty woman is using birth control. I think that it's pretty safe to say that most accidental pregnancies are accidental. Forcing someone to get pregnant against their will is most likely a rare thing. However, it does happen and both sexes do it. Birth control is not a means to make reproduction coercion happen, it's a means to prevent it. You've probably heard that child support courts are... jacked. Even as a guy who says that if you have kids you should be held responsible to take care of them, I can agree that our system of child support is amazingly bad. I can go on and on about all of it's problems, but I'll leave you with one little note. The same society that says that a man can't be trusted with birth control says that he wants sex all the time, and it also says that if he doesn't want a kid he should keep it in his pants. That's... um confusing logic, but society, what do you do in cases of a man being raped by a woman? The case is Hermesmann v. Seyer. It determined that if a child was conceived by a criminal act, she was still entitled to child support. The common knowledge is that rape isn't about sex, it's about power. And a female rapist has the power to make her victim pay for a child caused by the rape for 18 years or else he could lose his driver's license, get his wages garnished, even be imprisoned. While that sounds bad, and on its own it is horrible, it gets even worse during statutory rape. Kids younger than the age of 16, after being raped by their teachers or other adults they might not know, have been forced to pay child support. Also, if these rape victims fail to pay they're called deadbeats by society. If they didn't want to have these kids, they should have kept it in their pants. Reforming child support is difficult. In this world there does exist men who would just abandon their children because la de da, but there are also women who would get pregnant to extort money out of someone. With the way that our current laws are written, not only do we have to not punish one of these two options, our society has to actively support one of these two behaviors. Both are despicable behaviors, and we should be doing things on a more case-by-case basis. (Unfortunately, these places get a cut of the money and society is slow to change so...). In the meantime, the only way around things like this is some kind of fully effective reversible male birth control. Society, by the way, also says that men don't need this because they have the vasectomy, an invasive surgery, and the condom which is a 4000 year old technology. And things like this and family courts seem to be a lot of the reason that men don't want to start families. Which feeds into the stereotype of women being the caregivers and nurturers, even if some specific women do not want to be. In a vacuum, would more men or women want to be parents? I don't know because we've never had a vacuum devoid of all culture. Women carry the baby for nine months because mammals, but being a new parent creates chemical changes in both the brains of men and women. This is one of the reasons that men can also get postpartum depression. Speaking of which, while certain people like to attack the damsel in distress I think the murderous postpartum depressed mommy is a far worse portrayal of women. This is a problem because 80% percent of new mothers experience some kind mild depression after giving birth. That's to be expected. Pregnancy messes with your hormones, and that depression is everything going back to its default. 80% of new mothers do not kill their infant. 1 in 1000 women who develop postpartum depression develop postpartum psychosis. And of those 1 in 1000 of the 80%, only 4% kill. And this number is only this high because people are so uneducated about it. Let's start with the obvious, assuming that a woman is going to kill your baby is something akin to assuming that a man is going to rape you. It's called sexism. Postpartum depression is a normal thing, and it should be treated more like a complication of birth than an actual mental disorder. Everyone involved should know that being slightly depressed after giving birth is a completely normal thing. The best thing to do is connect to friends and family. Most importantly, the person who is depressed should not be treated like a danger. That can make the depression worse. But most female characters tend to get criticized for both what she is and what she isn't. This character is too regressive. This character acts too much like a man. It seems that a lot of people just don't know how to write female characters. The common advice was to just write a man and change the gender in the rewrite. That is not exactly a wise thing to do, depending on the setting. Societies usually have different expectations on men and women (which isn't right, but it's what tends to happen). Also, there's the Smurfette Principle. When people tend to write a show for a general audience, there's usually one token girl. When people tend to write a show specifically aimed at girls, there's usually one token boy. Don't do this ever. When you have just one person of a minority (technically women aren't a minority) congratulations, that one character has become the definition of that entire group. This is why a lot of people are so frustrated with Spike from MLP, by the way. Speaking of that. There's a joke. I don't know if it's old or anything, but "a woman can do anything that a man can do... except crossdress." Feminine things are often seen as lesser in our society. For example, a man putting on a dress is seen as ridiculous. A woman putting on pants is pretty much normal. Is this because of sexism? I don't really know. (Honestly, I think it has more to do with homophobia than sexism, at least on the guy's side). I've heard it said that it's because a man is "demoting himself" by doing something like this, although I don't think that applies to... everything. Have you seen any commercial about housework, ever. "It's so simple, a man can do it." Think about it this way. If every show about a woman in the office had her acting all bumbling and like an idiot, two questions: number one, would you still want to go into the office? Number two, how competant do you think society as a whole would think you would be at it? I'm not going to say that cooking and cleaning (one word: toilet) is easy to do, but it's not difficult to figure out. Men are ridiculed from doing feminine things, by both men and women. If a stay-at-home dad isn't considered a lazy bum, he's probably patronized. Cooking in some regard is still seen as woman's work (everyone in the United States should know how to cook). If a boy wants to play with "girls' toys" his parents will most likely be afraid of him being bullied. And as we've seen over the past couple of years, that's a very real fear. A man wants to take care of children, and there's assumed that there's something wrong with him. Also, it's particularly disastrous that being a good parent is considered to be a gendered thing. That, and education. For years, girls were lagging behind in education. It was stated that they needed to have role models and self-esteem and all kinds of money and campaign. Now boys are behind. According to society, they are failing because there's something wrong with them – they want to roughhouse, they can't stay still, they think succeeding academically is feminine. This double standard is used quite a lot, once again – women are stereotyped as weak, and men are stereotyped as strong. According to society, if boys want help they need to get over themselves and rid themselves of their flaws. And I can imagine a lot of the self-esteem stuff being aimed at girls as very patronizing. This is part of what I mean by some people who claim they're fighting for equal rights treating being female like it's a disability. And considering how people with disabilities are treated in our society... "Girls need help because they can't do things on their own." And "boys don't get the help they need because they don't ask for it." And boys don't ask for help because they're told to "man up." "Man up" let's be completely honest, it's totally regressive. I think that like "boys will be boys" at one point it was gender neutral. Like "man up" used to mean "don't be a child" lately it's become subscribe to your predetermined geneder role. "Man up" is a phrase most often used when a man at least wants sympathy, or he has to do something painful. Most male coming-of-age ceremonies around the world involve excessive amounts of pain. Sticking your hand in a pouch of bullet ants comes to mind. This societal expectation is largely why men are less likely to see a doctor, or a therapist. Which leads to a lower life expectancy, higher rate of suicide, and higher rate of incarceration. "Man up" to me is on the same level as "get back in the kitchen." How many times have you heard that women aren't playing certain games because advertisers aren't specifically telling them to play this or that game? Women don't need to be told what to consume or buy. The Sims, one of the best selling games of all time, is primarily consumed by women. And if you take a look at the ads, they don't aim at any specific gender. They aim at the audience who might be interested in their game. You see, when you advertise something "for girls" or "for boys" you're not be inclusive. You're actually doing the opposite, being exclusive. Largely for reasons mentioned above. If we market something to girls, we make it pink. If we market something to boys, we make it blue. Pink and blue are just colors, but they mean something to someone. When I write about gender roles, I turn it into a character vs society story. Most people who write this kind of stuff, do a character vs character story (like TTG's episode Boys vs Girls, and every episode with a similar plot). When you do it that way, if you're not careful you end up shooting what you're trying to teach in the foot. When society is the problem, it exposes the issues for what they are in a way that helps the audience get a better grasp on them. You could say say that women file more divorces and go along that route, or you could look into the issue. Saying women file more divorces than men is like saying there are two vending machines next to each other. The one on the right as all sorts of delicious chips and snacks and cookies. The one on the left is broken, and filled with weeks' old rotting fruit, and you think you saw a spider in there. More people use the vending machine on the right because of course they do. It's not the people using the vending machine, it's the vending machine itself. When I write about gender, it's not the characters being sexist – it's the society being sexist. When you only have one or a couple of characters being sexist, that's all it is – one or a couple of characters being sexist. It's a very black-and-white story, but there are many shades of gray when it comes to sexism. First of all, the parent who punishes their boy for playing with dolls probably doesn't think that they're being sexist. As I've said, they're probably just trying to prevent him from getting bullied – but that sends the message that a boy playing with dolls is something to be bullied over. I'm writing a short story that might become something longer, where I take some tips from dystopian fiction. "Here's our current path, but made twenty times worse." The basic idea is that in the world of that story, politics and things like voting are seen as girly and effeminite. Being a student body president is like being the head cheerleader at your high school. Very little else has changed that didn't spark by tying having a political opinion to a gender role. The story is about a boy who first wants to vote in his high school election, and then wants to run for student council. The reaction needs to be painfully predictable. Some people stick to their prescribed gender roles, even if it damages their health or happiness because society tries to make it worse for them. There's a lot of different topics that I could cover, but this has been going for quite some time. I didn't even cover half of the topics that I could have in this one. I'm still not sure what the supplementary will be in my Peter-Assment review. I'd like to think that we're at the point in this society where we do realize that a man can be a victim and a woman can do the victimizing. I respect my audience to go to such a kindergarten level around this. Maybe it'll be a more indepth look at how being sexist to one side comes back to being sexist towards the other. I am definitely going to be talking about how the law does screw over men in the actual video, and other things more specific to the situation of the episode Category:Miscellaneous